DW12 Issues at IMS...Problem or Not?

[LawGuy60606]

We've all heard the stories about the DW12's teething issues and that it isn't performing at IMS like Dallara had modeled. It snaps loose, can't get the speed up, etc...

So here's my question...assuming that the car isn't ridiculously horrible and objectively impossible to engineer to a reasonable base level...is this lack of performance maybe a good thing in some ways?

Let's say next year the pole speed is something like 215 or 216. Wouldn't that add some intrigue over the next few years as aero kits come out and as teams try to engineer solutions to the car's issues? Maybe the pole speed goes from 215 in 2012 to 225 in 2015...to me, that adds interest from a technical perspective. Which teams found answers? Which aero kits are making the car work best? Blah blah blah.

[ttturner68]

There is some validity as long as it a aero issue and teams are free to move around the weight.

Any new product has thing that need to be improved on each step of development otherwise you could go straight to production.

[cc]

It's incredibly unlikely that the problem won't be fixed before May.

[Hitokiri]

It's incredibly unlikely that the problem won't be fixed before May.

Exactly.

I think the issue is that the simulator's are getting things wrong which is affecting the quality of the car on track. It's not really the car itself but the simulators not matching the real life expectations. Once they figure this out I can't see a reason why the DW12 can't at least match the speeds of the last generation Dallara.

[BADGER]

It is ridiculous to suggest that an ill handling car is a blessing in any way. IF the car handles like crap, do any of you think the new car will be racey? Drivers need confidence in the handling to go off line and make passes, the last thing they want is a car that is unpredictable and puts them in the wall with little warning.

[Dez1013]

I believe there was a thread on this already with a great discussion between Spike and 220mph.

[FlatOut]

To think for a split second that a poorly balanced car thats out of whack is something that should be fixed by aero kits is completely ludicrous.
If I think were your going, why not do it an easier way: allow Firestone to produce a hideous tire compund that marbles and blows out in 25 laps, let the teams and engineers figure it out. Why not? There is nothing positive with the car turning 217's at Indy and its not for people to make aero kits to fix a problem with the chassis out of the box.

[LawGuy60606]

To think for a split second that a poorly balanced car thats out of whack is something that should be fixed by aero kits is completely ludicrous.
If I think were your going, why not do it an easier way: allow Firestone to produce a hideous tire compund that marbles and blows out in 25 laps, let the teams and engineers figure it out. Why not? There is nothing positive with the car turning 217's at Indy and its not for people to make aero kits to fix a problem with the chassis out of the box.

Well I did qualify by saying: "assuming that the car isn't ridiculously horrible and objectively impossible to engineer to a reasonable base level"

So we're out of the realm of the '08 Brickyard or the '05 USGP.

I'm merely suggesting that coming out of the era of the big packs, it would be interesting to see the teams engineer 10 MPH out of the car over a period of years. And I'm reasonably sure that we're not ever going to see race speeds above 230, so if we're going to see speed gains it's going to be because we started lower and built up.

[JimmyB10]

To think for a split second that a poorly balanced car thats out of whack is something that should be fixed by aero kits is completely ludicrous...
There is nothing positive with the car turning 217's at Indy and its not for people to make aero kits to fix a problem with the chassis out of the box.

Agree with the first part: it's a balance/handling issue that an aero kit can't be expected to fix. But disagree on the second, for several reasons, but here's two (though I acknowledge that I am not an expert, so I am open to correction if any of these comments are off the mark):

1) computer simulations, no matter how sophisticated they get, are not perfect. There seems to be a difference in balance between entering/exiting corners, or perhaps coasting/accelerating, that is larger than anticipated and can't be fixed by the usual suspension and handling adjustments; SO they have to find a little extra weight savings at the back of the car. No completely surprising or an indicator of gross design incompetence. Simulations are not perfect.

2) Personally, I think you can forget about the speed problem. Fix the handling problem, and you will fix the speed problem. If drivers have to lift more and/or earlier, and have to get back on the throttle later and/or more gently, at Indy that's going to seriously kill your lap speeds. Fix the handling so that drivers can enter the turns quicker, maintain momentum and get back on the throttle earlier and harder, and you will have the lap speeds you're looking for. What's more, if you can maintain your speed in the turn and come out of the corner quicker, you can run an even taller top gear and get better straightaway speed.

Make sense?

[Hitokiri]

It is ridiculous to suggest that an ill handling car is a blessing in any way. IF the car handles like crap, do any of you think the new car will be racey? Drivers need confidence in the handling to go off line and make passes, the last thing they want is a car that is unpredictable and puts them in the wall with little warning.

I disagree. If you read the quotes by guys like Paul Tracy or even Gil De Ferran a car that is too confident is not good. You need some level of unpredictability to pull the real drivers from the wimpy drivers. This is even the logic of NASCAR where the car is purposely made to under perform to match the skill and the bravery of the driver. Even in road racing this is true where often times cars are dumbed down to make things more challenging. It's a signature of all sports and that's why F1 is often criticized today. The cars are too full of gimmicks and even vets like Rubens Barrichello are saying that its take the driver out of the driving.

[shuhzayum]

I disagree. If you read the quotes by guys like Paul Tracy or even Gil De Ferran a car that is too confident is not good. You need some level of unpredictability to pull the real drivers from the wimpy drivers. This is even the logic of NASCAR where the car is purposely made to under perform to match the skill and the bravery of the driver. Even in road racing this is true where often times cars are dumbed down to make things more challenging. It's a signature of all sports and that's why F1 is often criticized today. The cars are too full of gimmicks and even vets like Rubens Barrichello are saying that its take the driver out of the driving.

I think you are a little off base here. You want a car that is hard to drive. You want the power to be controlled by the drivers right foot, you want them backing off. You don't want a car that is completely unmanageable and basically soft-peddled around the track well down from its potential because of an error in the cars very design. Apparently the gearbox was too heavy and other things that Dallara's simulator didn't figure into the building of the car. The problem should be solved pretty quickly and hopefully when it debuts at St. Pete it will have a ton of power relative to its downforce and at every race next season only the good drivers can make the car dance. That will be a HUGE step forward for IndyCar.

Chris

[Lemming51]

Being slower than "modeled" is not a problem.
But the current state of the sport has a heavy emphasis on driver safety, so while a car that "snaps loose" is a good thing to separate the good racers from their grandmothers, it has the potential to be a very big problem if it's likely to result in a lot of seriously injured drivers.

[Inline]

It's good for Dallara, it allows them to come out and sell an upgrade kit next May. Maximize profits on their business plan.

[drdisque]

That's what I was thinking too.

I thought all the hawks around here were clamoring for a car that's less "stuck" and "harder to drive" and "requires the drivers to lift".

Isn't that exactly what this is?

[railroad]

That's what I was thinking too.

I thought all the hawks around here were clamoring for a car that's less "stuck" and "harder to drive" and "requires the drivers to lift".

Isn't that exactly what this is?

I think most of us want a low downforce, hi HP car, but we want it to be safe and overpowered within known parameters. This car sounds like a big question mark right now. And a potentially dangerous one at that.

[puzzled one]

That's what I was thinking too.

I thought all the hawks around here were clamoring for a car that's less "stuck" and "harder to drive" and "requires the drivers to lift".

Isn't that exactly what this is?

I guess it kinda depends on your viewpoint................ A car that the driver does not have confidence in knowing what it will do when he turns the wheel...............is a problem, which were this the case, could easily lead to lots of spares business for Dallara..................

[debris on the track]

It'd be nice to have a car where some teams can make great leaps forward rather than all teams fighting for tenths of a second at the end of the curve.